Re: OT: Public libraries

On 4/23/2025 4:34 PM, legg wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 22:46:34 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
 

On 4/22/2025 10:01 PM, legg wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:40:29 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>

On 4/22/2025 1:43 PM, legg wrote:

One of the benefits of library computers is access to the

>
Yes, but one can access that from home (computer, phone).  Hence
my comment regarding storing books in "high cost" spaces instead
of "in a back room"; if the staff are the ones who will be
PICKING the books, then there is no need for the co$metic$ of
public stacks.
>

<snip>
>
Anything that requires home hardware or internet payments is shifting
the publicly costed structure onto the backs of a public that can not
always afford it.
>
It's the reason public libraries were developed by altruists
in the first place.

>
But, by that reasoning, shouldn't healthcare, transportation,
potable water, food, education, etc. ALSO be "free" to those
populations?
>
Yet, you wouldn't want to shame them into admitting their *need*...
>
I've always seen the libraries as something that serves the ENTIRE
public, not just a portion thereof.

>
Hence they should continue to serve those without home computers
or expensive internet service contracts.

I suspect that will put them on the chopping block as municipalities
look to tighten their budgets.  Much like we see art and music eliminated
from public school systems.  Public funds diverted to private schools.
etc.

I'm not discussing health care, civic infrastructure, food marketing
, government education policy or etceteras; only the current function
  of public libraries ( in light of their immediate conventional
  purpose ).

We charge for those services -- and SUBSIDIZE the disadvantaged's
access to them.
E.g., the city opted to make public transportation free to all
(instead of free to those who couldn't afford it).  Telephone
service is free -- to those who can't afford it -- but not the
public as a whole.  I expect to haye for food, heat, electricity,
etc. -- despite others having a subsidy for each of these things.
We don't see anyone trying to take away telephone service, heat,
electricity, etc because those who PAY for it demand it.
But, the FREE libraries can be bled because there is no one
willing to pay for its continued service.  Witness the reduction
in hours I mentioned.  If the hours were further reduced to 4 per
day, *I* would still be able to have my needs met.  But, the
folks who rely on it for access to toilet facilities, a warm/cool
place to "be indoors", internet access, etc. would see their
value of the resource slashed dramatically.

Libraries, by themselves, don't NEED a public, and for millenia did
not serve them in any direct manner. There are many libraries today
that have no obligation to allow your (or anybody elses) access .

Sure!  But how would that serve those disadvantaged?  The affluent would
still retain access to those materials -- even if via a paid service.
But, behind locked doors, the disadvantaged would see their access
disappear completely.  Yet, The Library still exists!